Violence: an American Archetype

If James Holmes, the Aurora, Colo., shooter, had been a foreigner or, worse still, a Muslim, our nation would react with fury and vengeance. America would do what it does frequently and with great alacrity: we would once again declare war on our enemy. Yet, when the enemy is one of us, we respond with statements of incredulity, shock, and of course compassion for the victims’ families and friends. We appear to accept these recurring acts of wanton violence as a necessary evil of living in our open society. More to the point, the majority of our nation defends gun ownership with a religious and zealous fervor. Let’s examine what’s going on here.

The U.S. is easily the most violent high-income society on Earth.[i] There are approximately 9,500 murders by guns,[ii] twenty mass murders per year,[iii] and we rank 88th out of 158 in terms of peacefulness, according to the Global Peace Index.[iv] How is it that we muster all of our resources to conquer a foreign threat but we paradoxically surrender to our internal enemy without so much as a whimper?

The collective chauvinistic spirit of America defends our national interests and shores with immense vigor. This is part of the psyche of our culture, an eighteenth century remnant of the need to protect our nascent nation from legitimate threats. Yet there is another, more antiquated archetype that we remain wed to: the individualistic chauvinism born in the gunslinger, frontier spirit of the Wild West. In that not-so-bygone era, a cross exchange would be grounds to un-holster your weapon and blow away your enemy. This motif, and the root of our chauvinism from the micro perspective, survives in the stand your ground laws recently exposed by the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

As a nation, why do we remain mired in the core tenet of arming our citizenry? Constitutional arguments around the right to bear arms are, at this point, ridiculous. The Founding Fathers simply could not conceive of the carnage we have witnessed year in, year out since Columbine. They would undoubtedly revisit the second amendment’s wording if they had foreseen the destructive capabilities of a Smith & Wesson M&P .223 with a hundred-round clip, the assault rifle Holmes unleashed on his fellow citizens. Our society has come to the reasonable conclusion that the first amendment, allowing for free speech, cannot be unlimited. There are simply too many deleterious consequences stemming from the exercise of such limitless power—and the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that. Why then do we cling to the unfettered barbarism allowed for by the second amendment?

This is due to a cultural attachment to our weapons that we haven’t yet outgrown, much like a young boy refusing to release his grip on his toy revolver. It’s curious as to why we have evolved over the centuries in so many other ways but still retain a childlike fixation with violence, which is evinced on the macro level by our state of perpetual warfare—if this seems like an exaggeration, try considering when we haven’t been at war over the last seventy years—and its micro manifestation through individual gun ownership.

This phenomenon was recently depicted by Congressman Louie Gohmert, the Texas Republican who was quoted as saying, “It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly.”[v]

There we have it. The distortion of his thinking is breathtaking. We are so habituated to violence that we propose more guns as a solution to the havoc wreaked by guns, notwithstanding that Holmes was covered from head to toe in defensive swat gear.[vi] The fact that we have become inured to this violence speaks to the psychological dysfunction. When a system—individual, family, or culture —adapts to and normalizes grossly abhorrent activities, that system is terribly impaired. This condition is known as normosis, whereby we make normal that which is indeed aberrant.[vii] As a society, we find ourselves in just this circumstance.

Mr. Gohmert’s line of reasoning is not only misguided, it is outright dangerous—numerous studies indicate the statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.[viii][ix][x][xi][xii] If his postulation were extended to international affairs, Mr. Gohmert would in effect be calling for all nations—pacific and belligerent alike—to be armed with nuclear weapons. This unpalatable situation exposes the dubious logic behind the “arm everyone” crowd, and the congressman’s thinking is influenced by the very problem itself.

The archetype of violence—to which we are indeed addicted—and our ensuing relationship with guns has come to rule our national and cultural psyche. Further evidence of this is embodied by Congress’ decision to refuse the passage of legislation barring individuals on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns.[xiii][xiv] This so-called “terror gap” or “terror loophole” is so irrational it appears deranged. If the United States were an individual, it would be in therapy for angermanagement issues and a dysfunctional attachment to violence. It’s time to break this collective, unconsciousaddiction. Our unrestrained affinity with the archetype of violence truly impoverishes our nation in tragic ways, yet it is amenable to change if we first come to recognize its existence.

Mel Schwartz is a psychotherapist and author of the forthcoming book A Shift of Mind: Rethinking the Way We Live. Jesse Schwartz is a freelance writer based in NY.

Maybe Americans think it's our responsibility to protect ourselves, and don't care to rely in an inefficient and corrupt police force? Maybe we see the futility in disarming, as shown in the spate of German school shootings, or the terrible massacre in Norway?

Or maybe we'd like the option to shoot back instead of shielding our loved ones with our bodies?

And maybe instead of blaming me for Aurora, you should look at the madman who did the crime. Do you think taking away his guns would have stopped the massacre? The man had complex explosives he'd assembled as well. Are you going to outlaw common household chemicals because a clever person can make a bomb out of them?

I'll keep my guns, thank you, and you can go on shuddering in your paranoid fantasies about gun-owners.

You hit the nail Zack, bravo. We all pay for the price of freedom; it’s the chance we all take. Like crossing a busy street, no matter how careful you are there still a possibility you could get hit. If someone wants to kill they will find or make a weapon. It does not matter what gun laws are in place. I exuberantly express the American fascination with violence. Before Hollywood, before the Old West, its how we started as a country – and more than likely it will be how it ends. I am proud to be a gun owning red blooded American.

"A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday."

Further proof of the dysfunctional Chinese knife culture, born out of the legitimate need many centuries ago to protect itself from the Mongol horde, continues to thrive today, subjecting the nation to its onslaught.

I'm fairly irritated with the endless piling on whenever a tragic random act like this occurs---yet daily in a handful of our major cities--nearly all the real gun violence occurs. Nearly all murders are done with handguns, roughly 90%, and assault rifles, are by far the least used weapon in deaths. Clearly, it is the spooky aspect and the "machine gun" issue that keeps this argument going.

So why not a ton of articles written about massive amount of inner city gang violence which is almost entirely done with handguns? Instead, focus on a fringe statistical anomaly that gets many liberals attention--because of the media hype and it happening, not in gang territory--but their 'safe' areas. Implicit bias at work, I would say. More articles on this CO shooting, then all the other hideous murder that goes on daily in this country--and doesn't involve the 'scary looking' guns.

How about a real discussion about how impotent mental health professionals really are when confronted with a Laughler, or Holmes type person? How difficult it is to get someone committed against their will, and how short a period of time it typically lasts. How police, really can't do anything most of the time, if a crime hasn't occurred and the person has no criminal record and only a few minimal statements to go on. How the Mental health "system" is anything but, and how difficult it is for the few psychopaths that even get treated to be dealt with, even if they raise concerns--but don't say anything specific, or anything specifically violent. About HIPAA laws, and real litigation risks, for anti-social type personalities that make therapists/psychiatrists nervous--but don't give an concrete evidence of doing anything violent in the future.

This CO shooting is by far the worse example to be used for gun control, and even worse given--that the AR jammed, and that glock .40's with hollow points are far more fatal at close range, and handguns can have high capacity mags as well. Plus, this guy was making bombs, and clearly could have killed far more people with his bombs in a public place, or old fashion gas jars w/ rags and all the rest.

The bill of rights, is meant to protect the minority from the majority. The focus on this is ridiculous, given all the horrible issues that are statistically more likely. So focus on something that would change nothing--you could make all the assault weapons disappear by magic tomorrow and it would only drop the death toll by less than 1%--and thats not very likely, given those people would just use handguns, or gas bombs or some other thing. The majority of innocent people each year killed by assault rifles in this country are actually US citizens, by police/Swat--in accidental shootings. Ooops, wrong house, wrong person. But people don't focus on that. If we treated all public policy debates like this, we would make accidental stair falling deaths #1 priority in America, rather than focus on the many things that really affect the most people. No answers to gang violence seem to be working, and apparently people are so habituated to it--or I would say proxemically removed from it--that people in the higher SES worry about the occasional wealthier anomaly, rather than the real issues of gang/handgun murders that make up the bulk of all murders in this country each year. Why not write some articles on that instead. I've seen families devastated by gang murders many times, but poor inner city people don't seem to get the attention of the yuppies--but apparently when things hit yuppie areas--man does it get people frightened and illogical in regards to risk assessment.

Let's don't forget that outside of the city people use guns for things like killing dangerous animals. If a dangerous animal like a wolf or alligator enters the yard where your children are playing, you need a gun. You also need guns for protection if you live in very remote areas where waiting on the police is out of question. Most gun lovers I know are deer hunters. These people enjoy the outdoors and living off the land. That is not unhealthy. There are places in this country where owning a gun is a question of survival. Expecting people to ignore their innate survival instincts is unreasonable. There is also the very old argument that we need to defend ourselves against government oppression. All the recent Arab uprisings serve to remind us of our own responsibility to keep this country as free as possible. For example, look at what is going on in Syria. I believe the author of this article is living a very sheltered urban life that most Americans cannot relate to. I also think he is suffering from the same black and white thinking that he is supposed to be treating. Guns aren't "bad" or "good". They have their place in lives of some. There is a reason why the right to bare arms is in the constitution.